Global Journal of Management and Business Studies.
ISSN 2248-9878 Volume 3, Number 7 (2013), pp. 695-702
© Research India Publications
http://www.ripublication.com/gjmbs.htm
Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis and its Repercussions
on Microfinancing Activities in India
Prabhjot Kaur1 and Soma Dey2
1,2
Management Studies, North Campus,
University Of Delhi, Delhi, 110007, India.
Abstract
Microfinance institutions once considered as a tool for sustainable
development are today themselves grappling with the issues of their
own sustainability. Eruption of Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis,
2010 endangered the existence and viability of operations of
Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) in India. Enactment of Andhra
Pradesh Microfinance Institutions (regulation of money lending) Act,
2010 stifled the operations of MFIs very badly. Under the Act,
provisions related to recovery of loans caused repayment of loans to
fall from 99 per cent to 10 per cent only. Present paper attempts to look
into the enabling reasons responsible for spawning the crisis. Further
attempt has been made to trace the repercussions of Andhra Pradesh
Crisis on the activities of MFIs. Analysis from the data accessed from
the various reports like State of Sector Reports on Microfinance by
ACESSS , NABARD, Microfinance Information Exchange data and
MCRIL Review Reports etc., have found that loan disbursement,
clients served, cost efficiency and operational sustainability etc. of
MFIs has been hampered by the crisis. However reprieved
Microfinance Bill if passed can bring optimistic change in the sector.
Credit bureaus are also playing important role to tackle the problems
that caused the emergence of crisis in 2010.
Keywords: Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis, Credit bureau, MFIs,
Operational sustainability, Self Help Group etc.
696
Prabhjot Kaur & Soma Dey
1. Introduction
Microfinance began its journey by providing credit to the poor. Later on it embraced
saving and insurance services and has now extended its ambit of financial services to
provide micro remittance and micro pension etc. to very poor people who were
otherwise deprived from the formal financial services due to the complexity of the
system and due to lack of collateral. But, once considered as a tool for sustainable
development, Microfinance Institutions (MFIs) are today themselves grappling with
the issues of their own sustainability. This is true, especially, in case of India who is
yet to overcome from the impacts of the Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis, 2010.
During 2005-10 Indian microfinance sector was one among the largest microfinance
sector in the world and Andhra Pradesh was applauded as “the State that would reform
India” (The Economist, 2000). However ripples of the Andhra Pradesh crisis were felt
almost by every state of India and deformed their loan portfolios and their reach to the
poor. Enactment of Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Institutions (regulation of money
lending) Act, 2010, impacted micro-lenders’ profitability, loan recovery and turned
their operations unviable. The crisis in the microfinance sector has left some
microfinance companies with negative net worth due to which they are unable to
borrow from the banks and hence their credit disbursal get affected by the crisis.
Funding constraints, negative perceptions combined with higher operating costs are
posing real challenges to the growth of the industry. All indicators, viz., clients, Gross
Loan Portfolio, disbursements, branches, employees, portfolio quality and financial
performance ratios etc. have deteriorated overall for MFIs in India (The Microscape,
2012). Present attempts to comprehend the reasons that were responsible for the
eruption of the crisis in Andhra Pradesh and its repercussions on the activities of MFIs
operating in India.
2. Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis
In the wake of incidents like MFIs using unethical practices to recover the loans which
apparently lead to suicides by the borrowers, allegation of multiple borrowing and
charging high interest rates forced Andhra Pradesh (AP) Government to promulgate an
ordinance in October, 2010 to save the borrowers. In December, 2010 Ordinance was
enacted as Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Institutions (regulation of money lending)
Act. Following the Act, operations of MFIs just came to halt. In 2009 growth of loan
portfolio and clients were 95 per cent and 57 per cent respectively; it came down to
mere 17% for both in the fiscal year 2010. Loan write-offs also increased in 2010 to 3
per cent from a mere 0.6 per cent for the same period one year earlier. Even with an
offer to halve the interest rate charged on overdue loans, the industry was not able to
increase recovery rates (MIX Microfinance World, 2011). Ordinance refrained MFIs
from collecting money door to door and enjoined them to collect money from the
public places mentioned in the Act on monthly basis instead of on weekly basis. Since
use of forceful practices to recover loans were now punishable under the Act and in
absence of cluster and centre meetings where MFIs usually used to collect money ,
Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis and its Repercussions on Microfinancing
697
message that was perceived by the borrowers was they are not required to repay their
debt and in any case state government is there to protect them. The recovery rate
plummeted from 99% to 10% (Srinivasan, 2011). Analysis of M-CRIL Microfinance
Review (2011) indicates crisis left the MFIs in India to possess worst portfolio quality
ratios in the world. Portfolio at Risk (PAR30) sprang up from 0.67% (March end 2010)
to 25.5% in 2011.
2.1 Genesis of the Crisis
However, Andhra Pradesh ordinance did not come out of the blue. Genesis of the
Andhra Pradesh Microfinance crisis can be traced back in the year March, 2006 when
Krishna district government closed down 57 branches of two largest MFIs (SHARE
and Spandana) as well as those of few smaller MFIs. Decision to close down of these
MFIs came because of the allegations of unethical collections, illegal operational
practices (such as taking savings), poor governance, usurious interest rates, and
profiteering (CGAP, 2010). There was even an allegation that 10 borrowers of MFIs in
Krishna district committed suicide because they were unable to repay the loans taken
from MFIs (Shylendra ,2006). Ghate (2006) cited near-saturation of Andhra with
microfinance as one of the most important enabling cause for the crisis. The
implication of above point is that borrowing from multiple sources like Velugu (SHG
scheme backed by AP Government and assisted by World Bank), MFIs and
moneylenders culminated in over indebtedness. Rapid expansion of bank credit as
facilitated by initiatives like ICICI partnership model and availability of cheap credit in
form of "Pavala Vaddi” scheme, motivated by political consideration, intensified the
crisis. As diagnosed by Shylendra (2006) conflict between State supported SHGs and
Civil society initiatives in form of MFIs as the major reason behind the eruption of
crisis.
MFIs had to face the brunt of Act in 2010, for not learning lesson from 2006 crisis
and ignoring all the warnings pertaining to high interest and growth rate, concentration
of activities in the region etc. Over indebtedness in AP can be gauged from the fact
that, in comparison to national average of Rs. 7,700, in Andhra Pradesh, the average
debt outstanding per household was Rs. 65,000 (CGAP, 2010). Inability of borrowers
to repay such huge amount resulted in stress on the part of borrowers and use of
coercive methods on the part of MFIs to recover the loan payments, which ultimately
resulted in suicides of the borrowers. The government had cited the death of 54
customers by suicide. However state Government backed SHGs were kept out of the
purview of the Act though different studies are showing they were also responsible for
multiple borrowing. M-CRIL (2011) study clearly stated if the number of MFIs
loans is over 100% of the number of eligible, financially excluded families, SHG loans
are actually 310% of that number. So keeping SHGs away from the ambit of Act,
agonized MFIs and it was perceived by them as an Act to protect state Government
backed SHGs from the competition from MFIs. So in the wake of incidents like
over‐indebtedness, hype created by the IPO of SKS Microfinance coupled with the
reports of suicides in rural Andhra Pradesh resulted in ordinance of 14 October, 2010.
698
Prabhjot Kaur & Soma Dey
However crisis of 2006 to some extent was calmed down when MFIs espoused by
Sa-Dhan appealed state government authorities to not to take any detrimental actions
against them. Closed down branches were reopened as MFIs agreed to abide by public
audit, a Code of Conduct (issued on 20 March, 2006) pertaining to transparency of rate
of interest. MFIs released an indicative schedule of interest rates that could be possibly
charged by them (21- 24 per cent), arrived at based on the prevailing cost structure of
MFIs.
3. Repercussions of the Crisis
As criticized by Legatum Venture (2011) enactment of the AP Act has stifled the
access of basic financial services to the poorest citizen of India and estimated to have
effect on 450 million people. The crisis in the microfinance sector has left
microfinance companies like SHARE Microfin, Asmitha Microfin, Spandana Sphoorty
Financial, Trident Microfin and Future Financial Services with negative net worth
(Business Standard, 13 Sep, 2013). According to norms, banks are not allowed to give
fresh loans to companies that have negative net worth. Since Banks stopped lending to
MFIs, they have not been not been able to disburse fresh loan to their clients. Banks
were also hit by crisis as 80% of loans MFIs borrowed were from the banks. Of the Rs
21,000 crore that banks have outstanding to MFIs, roughly a third was borrowed from
private banks (Financial Express, 1Nov, 2010). Banks and financial institutions lost
their trust on MFIs credibility to repay the loans. As shown in table 1, fresh lending to
MFIs by banks during the year 2011-12 declined by over 38% as compared to last
year. Loan outstanding against MFIs has come down by almost 17% during the year
2011-12. If the trend continues, microfinance sector is likely to face serious liquidity
crunch and will affect their outreach to the poor. As shown in figure 2, client outreach
has registered negative growth for the financial year FY 2011-12. In comparison to the
previous year, Gross Loan Portfolio (as shown in figure 1) also shrunk by 14 per cent
in FY 2011-12 and reduced to Rs. 172 billion (Microscape, 2012).
Crisis has made borrowing expensive. Cost efficiency of MFIs in India has
deteriorated, as even for non AP- MFIs cost per borrower has increased by 60% (MCRIL, 2012). Due to rising borrowing cost and inability to raise fund for growth,
financing expenses have increased and it is further straining the Operational Self
Sufficiency (OSS) and profitability of the firms. As shown in figure 4, OSS, for AP
MFIs fell drastically from 150 per cent (FY 2009-10) to 40 per cent (FY 2011-12).
Crisis has severely affected the Portfolio at Risk (PAR30) i.e. unpaid principal balance
of loans Overdue by greater than 30 days, has worsened from 0.4 per cent to 62 per
cent for AP MFIs (figure 3). On the profitability front out of 61 MFIs studied in State
of Sector Report(2012) , 11 registered negative Return on Assets (RoA). There were
mere 5 MFIs whose RoA were above 5 per cent.
However Microfinance Market Outlook (2013) gave some hope of recovery for the
Indian microfinance industry, as they expected it to expand by around 20% in 2013.
Role of Credit bureaus is applauded for bringing positive outlook of microfinance
Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis and its Repercussions on Microfinancing
699
sector as they helped in keep a check on multiple borrowing which was one of the
major responsible reasons behind the eruption of the crisis. But many informal sources
of finance are yet out of the purview of Credit bureaus. Enactment of Micro Finance
Institutions (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2012, which is still pending with the
Standing Committee on finance, has potential to catalyze the microfinance sector
under the wise regulation of RBI.
Table 1: Loans disbursed and outstanding to MFIs under
MFI-Bank Linkage Programme (In Rs. Crore)
Particulars
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
No. of Amount No. of Amount No. of Amount No. of Amount
MFIs
MFIs
MFIs
MFIs
581 3732.33 779 10728.50 471 8448.96 465 5205.29
Loans
disbursed
by banks to (12.2%) (89.4%) (34%) (187.4%) (-39.5%) (-21.3%) (-1.3%) (-38.39%)
MFIs
Loans
1915 5009.09 1659 13955.75 2315 13730.62 1960 11450.35
outstanding
against (72.7%) (82.2%) (- (178.6%) (39.5%) (-2.0%)
((-16.6%)
MFIs as on
13.4%)
15.3%)
March 31
Fresh loan
74.5
76.9
61.5
45.5
as a % of
loan
outstanding
Source: Status of Micro Finance in India 2011-12, NABARD
Figure 1
Figure 2
700
Prabhjot Kaur & Soma Dey
Figure 3
Figure 4
Source: The Microscape, 2012
4. Conclusion
In Indian microfinance history year 2010 was certainly a bad year. Allegation of
suicides due to unethical means of recovery of loans, charging higher rate of interest
by MFIs, over-indebtedness in Andhra Pradesh resulted in the enactment of Andhra
Pradesh Microfinance Institutions (regulation of money lending) Act, 2010. Stated
objective of the Act was to protect the poor borrowers from the MFIs who were
allegedly responsible for 54 suicides in Andhra Pradesh in 2010 due to their coercive
recovery practices. But analysis of different studies is showing that the Act protected
SHGs (which are supported by the state Government) from competition from the
MFIs, who were charging higher rate of interest and yet widely accessed by the
borrowers. SHGs were also responsible for multiple borrowing. M-CRIL (2011) study
clearly stated if the number of MFIs loans is over 100% of the number of eligible,
financially excluded families, SHG loans are actually 310% of that number. So
keeping SHGs away from the ambit of Act agonized MFIs. Provisions of the Act
related to recovery of loans seriously hampered the recovery rate and made it to fall
from 99 per cent to 10 per cent. Prevalence of uncertainty and risk made banks
reluctant to give loans to MFIs. Liquidity crunch affected client base, profitability and
sustainability of MFIs. Crisis hit the Operational Self sufficiency of AP based MFIs
very badly as it fell from 150 per cent to 40 per cent in FY 2011-12. Crisis affected the
portfolio quality of MFIs to the extent to make it worst performer on the global
platform. As pointed by Srinivasan (2011), “The Andhra Pradesh regulation is right on
intent, but wrong in its focus, coverage and application. Inappropriate regulation
produces long-term damage that is difficult to remedy”. Reprieved Microfinance Bill,
2012, if passed, can help in repairing the damage and nudge the Indian microfinance
sector to gain the ground again. However year 2013 is showing some sign of recovery
as it is expected to grow by 20 per cent during the year. Credit Bureaus have played
important role in checking multiple borrowing but many informal sources of finance
that are not covered by the credit bureaus are still issues of concern.
Andhra Pradesh Microfinance Crisis and its Repercussions on Microfinancing
701
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
Business Standard (2013), Allow banks to offer us fresh loans: MFIs to RBI,
http://www.business-standard.com/article/finance/allow-banks-to-offer-usfresh-loans-mfis-to-rbi-113091200555_1.html .
CGAP (2010), Andhra Pradesh 2010: Global Implications of the Crisis in
Indian Microfinance, Focus Note 67. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, November.
Financial
Express
(2010),
Why
blame
Akula?,
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/why-blame-akula/705194 .
Ghate Prabhu (2006), Microfinance in India: A State of the Sector Report,
Microfinance India, New Delhi.
Legatum Ventures (2011), Microfinance in India: A crisis at the bottom of the
pyramid, Legatum Ventures, Dubai.
M‐CRIL Microfinance Review (2011 ), Anatomy of a crisis, Micro‐Credit
Ratings International Limited, Gurgaon.
M‐CRIL Microfinance Review (2012), MFIs in a Regulated Environment: A
financial and social analysis, ,Micro‐Credit Ratings International Limited,
Gurgaon.
Microfinance Market Outlook (2013), High Debt? Low Growth? Not Here!,
Responsability Social Investments AG, Switzerland.
Mix Microfinance World: India: Post crisis results (2011),
http://www.themix.org/sites/default/files/MMW%20India%20Post%20Crisis%20Results.pdf.
Shylendra H S. (2006) Microfinance Institutions in Andhra Pradesh: Crisis
and Diagnosis, Economic and Political Weekly, 41, 1959–1963.
Srinivasan N (2011), Microfinance India : State of Sector Report, SAGE
Publications India, New Delhi.
The Economist (2000), The state that would reform India,
http://www.economist.com/node/354212 .
The Microscape (2012), Microfinance Institution Network,
http://mfinindia.org/wpcontent/themes/twentyten/pdf/MicroScape_Nov2012.pdf .
702
Prabhjot Kaur & Soma Dey